This is only my 2nd debate on gay marriage, the first of which I lost. Please be gentle =)

Full Topic

In a just society, gay marriages would not be permitted.

Terms

Just - based on what is morally or ethically right and/or fairGay marriage - a legally binding union conferring on two same-sex partners the same legal rights, status, and benefits that "traditional" marriage would typically confer upon opposite-sex couples.Traditional marriage - A typical marriage that was found in 1950s America

Rules

1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No Kritiks5. No trolling6. No semantics abuse7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions8. The BOP is on Pro: Pro must uphold the idea that same-sex marriages ought not to be permitted. Con must negate to the point where there is no logically sound reason to be Pro for being against gay marriage9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

Structure

First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used the discretion of the debater.

Preface: I will begin by writing that I do not hate homosexuals, I do not think that they should all be burned and I do not think that homosexuality is a plague. I am purely arguing against gay marriage.

It will be readily apparent that there are differences between these two kinds of unions. These differences are:

1) Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate

2) Superior/inferior child-rearing capabilities

From these differences, I will show that their impacts are sufficient to warrant non-permission of gay marriage.

Premise 2: Heterosexual marriage is the bed-rock of society

Let us start with a very important question: why would a state need to regulate and recognise a relationship (i.e. marriage) if it was purely about love? Do you need a state contract in order to love someone? Of course not!!

Now, if not purely for love, why does marriage exist? Marriage exists as an institution for fostering procreation and family. Furthermore, complete unity, manifesting in procreation between a man and a woman, is what allows a society to exist. To realise the gravity of this point, consider a society wherein only homosexual unities exist. In other words, there would be a zero birth-rate, and the society would quickly die-out. As you can see, it is not that homosexual relationships are worthless/filthy/inferior, it is that they are not suitable for marriage.

Heterosexual marriage, if it is superior to homosexual marriage in regards to construction of a family, should be denoted with a different term to recognise its importance, and should be treated differently, should it not? Hence, would not distinct terms, such as marriage and civil unions, be appropriate to infer a difference between the two entities?

In order to justify the comment of homosexual unity being inferior to heterosexual unity, in regards to child-rearing, allow me to offer you some arguments to consider.

A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate

The inability for homosexuals to procreate together results in a lacking in genetic interest in any children they decide to raise. According to Evolutionary Psychologist David M. Buss, “Genes producing effects that increase their replicative success will replace other genes, producing evolution over time. Adaptations are selected and evolve because they promote inclusive fitness”[2]. This point extrapolates that genetic parents have a natural inclination to taking care of their children, even to the point of having genetic adaptions to accommodate child-rearing (i.e. genetic interest). Therefore, it will be expected that heterosexual parents, all other facets being equal, will be superior parents for their biological children, when compared to homosexual parents of a non-genetic child.

To give weight to this impact, I will now cite statistics relating to the Cinderella Effect, which is an infamous phenomenon relating to non-genetic parental abuse of children which occurs due to lack of genetic interest. To express the gravity of this problem, a report by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson studied many different researches. Among them, it was found (Daly and Wilson, 2001) in several different countries, that stepparents, “beat very young children to death… more than 100 times higher than the corresponding rates for genetic parents” [1]. Another analysis completed in Canada found the rate to be 120 times greater [1]. Another study (Daly & Wilson 1994) found that in England & Wales in 1977-1990, 117 of the children under five beaten to death were done so by 103 stepfathers [1]. In Australia, the estimate by the Australian Family Characteristics Survey data “exceeds 300-fold” [1].

On a separate but relevant point, a study in Tanzania (Marlowe, 1999) found that stepfathers almost never played with their stepchildren, there were elevated rates in accidental (i.e. neglect) injury and that overall, there was less investment in stepchildren’s education [1].

A study in Trinidad (Flinn, 1998) found that stepfathers, on average compared to biological fathers, spent significantly less time with their stepchildren (especially in the sense of play-time and anything but the minimum required time).

Finally, because there are two homosexual, non-genetic parents in a relationship, all Cinderalla Effect rates of abuse, neglect and murder can be doubled.

So:

1) Homosexuals cannotreproduce together

2) Lack of genetic interest makes for an inferior parent(impact: much more likely to abuse, neglect and kill children at staggeringly highly rates)

C) Homosexuals are inferior parents, in this regard

A2: Superior/inferior chid-rearing capabilities

I. Emotional instability

The biological differences in the neurology between homosexuals and heterosexuals is another reason gay marriage should be disallowed. In the Netherlands, the first country to legalise gay marriage, a large study found that homosexuals, on average, have higher levels of psychiatric disorders. Controlling for demographics, homosexual men suffered from higher rates of substance-abuse disorders, mood-disorders, and both homosexual men and women were far more likely to have psychological disorders [3]. Despite the legalisation of gay marriage, homosexuals still suffer from higher rates of all kinds of negative affect. From this, we can conclude that, on average, homosexuals are far more mentally unstable.

According to Dr Ross, his research into homosexual mental illness found that across all the cultures studied, of which included the very tolerant Netherlands (where gay marriage is legal) and the much more hostile United States (in regards to treatment of homosexuals), there was virtually no variance in the rate of homosexual mental disorders [9].

Due to a higher incidence of mental instability, heterosexual union should be held in higher regard, in terms of raising children.

II. Marriage instability

The unions themselves are also unstable. Research into Scandinavian homosexual marriages (which includes Sweden, another country which has legalised gay marriage [4]) found that “divorce risks are higher in same sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men” [5]. This gives proof that compared to heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriages are far less stable.

III. Homosexual relationship infidelity

As it stands, homosexual men have a well-documented sexual promiscuity, when it comes to relationships outside of marriage, too. A study by Bell and Weinberg found rampant, unbridelled infidelity in homosexual relationships. 83% of homosexual men estimated they had sex, in their lifetime, with more than 50 partners. 43% estimated more than 500 partners. Incredibly, 28% said to have had sex with a whopping 1000 partners or more [6]. Another study performed by Paul Van de Ven found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [for homosexuals] was 101-500” [6]. Furthermore, an appallingly low 4.5% of homosexuals remain monogamous in their relationships [6]. To corroborate credence, a famous Canadian study discovered that of those homosexual relationships that lasted longer than one year, only 25% had remained monogamous [10]. How on Earth could the majority of these people be fit for the monogamy of marriage?!

II and III impact amplifier

Promiscuity is a clear indication of low vasopressin and oxytocin molecules, of which are vitally important in pair-bonding (i.e. a monogamous, married relationship) [8]. So important is fidelity to relationships that behavioural indicators of promiscuity show those who are promiscuous make for a poor parents, and are just as likely to show less concern for the partner [7]. Furthermore, sexual promiscuity actually lowers ability to pair-bond (by lowering oxytocin). Clearly, the ultimate impact here is that those people who are involved in promiscuous behaviour are (1) less fit for caring about children and (2) less caring about the other partner, hence more likely to be abusive or absent in the relationship, both of which are not suitable for marriage.

Syllogistic Summary

1) Homosexual and heterosexual unity is different

2) Heterosexual marriage exists as a bedrock of society

3) Homosexual inability to procreate leads to lack of genetic interest in children

4) Homosexuals are far more mentally unstable, and are also unstable with their relationships

C1) In regards to child-rearing, heterosexual marriage is superior to homosexual ‘marriage’

5) Due to the difference in effectiveness of the relationships, they should not be classed as the same

C2) Therefore, heterosexual union with the intention of child-rearing should be considered marriage whilst homosexual union should not be given the same label, due to the relevant differences which carry sufficient impact

The resolution is not over a relabeling of gay marriage (as civil marriage or another term). It is disingenuous of Pro to argue for a new label as this was not the topic presented in round 1. I object to banning gay marriage as defined in round 1 and I would not have accepted the argument if it were simply about a label. Pro needs to defend the resolution.

There are 1,138 benefits granted to married couples [5] that are important just to get through life and to flourish. Sharing social security after a death, tax breaks, immigration status, employee health benefits and hospital visitation in the event of an emergency are what is at stake here. I’ll point out that none of the benefits I mentioned require children and it is naïve to believe that marriage is mainly about child rearing. It is a partnership between two people. As Pro has pointed out, gays cannot reproduce naturally so children should not even be considered as adoption is a separate issue.

Pro’s entire argument is essentially a non sequitur or a case of special pleading.

I can accept Pro’s entire case including the conclusion and still reject the resolution. Basically Pro is arguing that homosexuals and their relationships are inferior to heterosexuals and their relationships. This does not lead one to ban gay marriage. She repeatedly equates child rearing with marriage when a formal adoption process protects children from any unfit parents as it is.

Pro’s requirements for gay marriage are above beyond the requirements for a straight marriage. For instance, above average parenting skills, fidelity and a high level of mental health have never been a requirement for straight marriage.

1) Homosexual and heterosexual unity is different, Heterosexual marriage is the bed-rock of society

To support this point Pro points out that homosexuals cannot have kids. She then asserts that marriage is the bedrock of society because marriages often produce children. Note that this is an argument against infertile or elderly marriage and is therefore a case of special pleading. For woman under 30, half of all children are born outside of marriage. [7] Society is still very much intact and you don’t need a marriage to raise children or has this ever been a requirement. Currently, marriage is often not even a requirement for adoption. [8]

A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate

Here Pro argues that gays do not make fit parents. As I have pointed out, gay parents (and all couples who want to adopt) have to go through an intense vetting process to determine if they will be good parents and Pro’s objections apply to all adopted parents so this is not a new or relevant issue. [8] Gay adoption is also a separate issue and you can have one without the other.

Superior/inferior chid-rearing capabilities

This debate is not about gay adoption and there are a formal requirements for adoption. [8] The stability of a home/relationship and emotional stability are all factors that are considered to find appropriate parents and adopting couples are held to a higher standard than all other parents. Not only is “fit parent” not a requirement for marriage but, unlike heterosexual couples, gay couples go through a formal vetting process before they are allowed to have children so Pro’s general concerns are not warranted.

I. Emotional instability

I’ll concede that it is possible that there is a higher incidence of mental illness among homosexuals and this could be said for a lot of social groups. Note that this is an argument that applies to many other social groups so Pro is unfair in applying this to gay marriage only. Soldiers have a higher incidence of mental illness than civilians [3] and whites have higher rates when compared with Asians. [4] Mental health is a spectrum and those that are considered severely ill cannot adopt children as it is. This is yet another instance of special pleading.

II. Marriage instability

Divorce rates are much higher among the highly religious and those in the bible belt in the United States. [1] Pro is yet again using special pleading adding additional requirements for gay marriage only. Some studies place the divorce rate among black couples to be as high as 70%. [2] Should we have a separate but equal black marriage as well?

III. Homosexual relationship infidelity

Pro simply assumes that marriage is necessarily monogamous but she could not be farther from the truth. I’ll concede that open and non-traditional marriages are much more common among male homosexuals. Some studies report that as high as 70% of married men and women have extra marital affairs. [6]

If only monogamous couples were allowed to marry this bedrock of modern society would crumble very quickly. If I could prove that men are more often unfaithful should they be denied marriage rights as well? Fidelity is obviously a challenge for all marriages and a formal commitment certainly encourages monogamy and investment in the relationship.

Pro’s requirements for marriage would exclude other groups from marriage.

Pro has essentially argued that gay marriage comes with a unique set of challenges. In every instance these challenges are common for all or many married couples. Many of the arguments are with respect to child rearing. Not only is this a separate issue but the problems apply to all couples that choose to adopt. Unless Pro would like to ban adoption this is another example of special pleading.

There are many target groups that struggle with mental illness or fidelity. In fact, marriage rights are designed to help couples and alleviate challenges for relationships by removing many financial hurdles, for example. If Gays are frequently troubled couples, marriage is designed to alleviate problems and assist the partnership.

Pro’s problems with Gay Marriage are isolated to the relationship itself.

Remember Pro is advocating an act of force. Men with guns should prevent loving couples from getting married but Pro has not established that gay marriage will have a negative or any impact on society. Pro has not been able to establish that gay marriage:

Has a negative impact

Significantly effects anyone outside the relationship

Gay relationships are different. They can’t produce biological children and may struggle more with mental illness or fidelity (I may protest these points later but I do not see how they impact the resolution). How does denying crucial marriage rights help with any of these issues and why is it anyone’s business?

If they struggle with fidelity already then why should society prevent a formal commitment? Marriage rights alleviate many problems so why should they be denied to the more troubled gay relationships. If they have these unique problems they will inside or outside of marriage. How does marriage impact anyone other than the couples in question?

Pro’s list of marriage requirements is unreasonable.

Pro has used several factors to determine who should be married but none of them are applied to heterosexual couples today. This is simply a double standard and an obvious bias. From Pro’s summary marriage should be denied gays because they are:

Unique

Make unfit parents

Have emotional/mental health issues

Are not always monogamous

None of these requirements are applied to heterosexual couples so Pro’s entire case is special pleading at best. I have demonstrated that straight couples share these same struggles as well. Why should these requirements be applied to gay couples alone? This is simply a double standard. In fact, the parental requirements are stricter for gay couples as they have to deal with a formal adoption process.

Moral obligation and a negative responsibility

Pro has indicated that we, as a society, have a moral obligation to prevent gay marriage. However, she has not been able to establish that gay marriage causes harm in anyway. She has not even tried to establish a moral framework or explain under what criteria she is making these moral judgments. Under a utilitarian moral code it is most certainly moral. [9] Pro has not established that there is any harm and I have shown that there are many benefits to gays.

Any level of moral obligation is extremely difficult to establish and it is especially difficult to establish a negative responsibility. [10] In other words, Pro is holding society responsible for not preventing an action that does not cause any harm. It’s one thing to say that it’s wrong to engage in gay marriage. It’s quite another to say that society is morally obligated to prevent gay marriage and Pro has not even come close to establishing the former.

-

Pro’s has essentially argued that Gay relationships deal with more potential problems. How does it follow that they should be prevented from entering into a formal commitment that alleviates many problems and assists in a partnership? Why should anyone outside the relationship be concerned when the impact of the marriage does not have an effect on anyone else?

My opponent concedes the argument that there is clear distinction between gay and heterosexual unions.

Addressing the next point of my opponent, it is not that children can be raised outside of marriage, it is that they should not. According to a collaborative report that cites over 150 academic articles/researched papers, children reared in intact, married, heterosexual families are: (1) more likely to participate in college, (2) are physically and emotionally healthier, (3) are less likely to be sexually or physically abused, (4) not as likely to use illicit drugs, (5) less likely to be incarcerated for delinquent behaviour, (6) less likely to become a parent before they are ready (i.e. in their teenage years) and (7) less likely to grow up in poverty. Heterosexual marriage is the safest, healthiest unit in which to raise children.

Addressing the conception that society can remain intact without marriage, I offer you the saddening case of Japan. Thanks to an alarming amount of Japanese people opting out of marriage, with “sixty-one percent of unmarried men aged 18 and 34 do not have a partner, nor do half of unmarried women the same age” [3], Japan now has a negative birth-rate [4]. Furthermore, so desperate is the economic situation that the Prime Minister of Japan is attempting to bail the country out through “quantitative easing and cash injections” [4]. This gives real evidence to show that countries do not exist without heterosexual marriage.

A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate

Con strawmans my argument by arguing against *conscious* decisions when my argument was against *subconscious* decisions; the lack of genetic interest is the issue! Furthermore, Con provides no evidence to support his *conscious* argument, so this is speculation, whereas mine is supported by research.

Furthermore, Con barely asserts that there is an “intense vetting process” without providing a shred of evidence for this claim. On the contrary, I cited several different studies which found lack of genetic interest to be a serious risk factor, of which none have been addressed. Hence, my studies are dropped and my opponent’s counter-argument is a bare assertion.

A2: Superior/inferior child-rearing capabilities

I defend the idea that marriage is about child-rearing under the “relabelling” heading later. Again, con’s reference does nothing to show that homosexual couples go through a different vetting process to heterosexuals, hence this claim is a bare assertion.

Culmination effect: Now, these arguments by themselves do not give enough impact to disallow gay marriage, but when combined, they culminate to the point where they are impactful enough to affirm the resolution. For example, emotional instability is not enough to affirm the resolution (likewise, my opponent’s individual counter-arguments do not negate the resolution by themselves), as there are other groups whom suffer from the same problem, yet marriage is not disallowed. However, when you realise that homosexuals are lowly rated in all three categories, and yet the counter-argument groups (at different stages: soldiers, whites, blacks, the religious and married men), you realise that homosexuals fall drastically below everyone else! Have a look:

So, I affirm this contention based on all three sub-headings working together, not as individual arguments.

I. Emotional instability

Con concedes that there is a higher rate of mental illness among homosexuals, regardless of cultural context.

II. Marriage instability

Con implicitly concedes (via constructing arguments with this premise) all my research and the conclusion that homosexual marriages are far less stable than heterosexual marriages.

III. Homosexual relationship infidelity

Con makes a super critical error in dropping all of my arguments, hence they are all to be extended.

II and III impact amplifier

This impact modifier has been completely ignored, hence it continues to supercharge these arguments.

Counter-arguments

Con’s counter-arguments oft repeat themselves and are scattered. I will restructure to avoid you the burden of reading the same arguments more than once.

Relabelling gay marriage/resolution misrepresentation: The “status” of a “traditional marriage” is that of one which is designed for child-rearing (using my gay marriage definition). Historically, marriage has been about “regulating the reproduction of children, families and society” [5]. It is a critical element of marriage that separates it from an ordinary relationship. Furthermore, when we try to apply marriage to homosexual unity, my arguments show that homosexuals are *vastly* inferior, when it comes to child-rearing, hence it is enough to not permit gay marriage. Then, I offer a counter-solution of recognising gay unity in other respects, of which would not be considered marriage (i.e. it is not have marriage or have no rights. Homosexuals can acquire rights through other unions). This should expose my opponent’s accusation of relabelling terms/resolution misrepresentation for the folly that it is.

In fact, Con’s implication that marriage is merely about the benefits it gives misrepresents a coherent conception of marriage. I politely ask my opponent to stick to the resolution and an accurate interpretation of marriage, rather than a partial one.

Does not matter whether children raised under marriage or not: Addressed under my Affirmative Case ‘Premise’ heading.

Benefits granted to married couples: As argued earlier, of which my opponent drops, the state has no interest in recognising mere relationships; homosexuals are allowed to be in love *without* the state recognising it, too. So, as Con listed, why would the state be interested in giving all those benefits to married couples?

1) Raising children is expensive. According to the United States department of agriculture, the projected cost of raising a child born in 2013 was $245,340 [1]

2) The state has interest in procreation under marriage (because it sustains society and is the best unit in which to raise children)

C) The state has interest in helping married couples raise children through “benefits”

So, I will *flip* my opponent’s argument by arguing that by giving gay couples access to the same benefits, benefits designed to help alleviate the financial burden of a child-rearing, family unit, the government wastes valuable tax-payers money on something that does not help the state or the community. *Even if* that does not convince you, I can still concede that homosexual unions could be granted the vast majority of benefits *without* being allowed marriage, as marriage is not solely defined by the majority of benefits it grants.

Later, Con barely asserts (no evidence provided) that these benefits will help alleviate all of the issues of homosexuals (e.g. mental issues, relationship issues etc.). To the contrary, my studies (particularly the one based in the Netherlands) show that despite some homosexual friendly policies, there was no difference found compared to places where there is hostility to homosexuality.

Adoption process: My opponent assumes that the adoption process, if difficult, accurately assesses parents (another bare assertion). If the adoption process allows partners *outside* of marriage to adopt, especially after I have shown you much better marriage is for children *and* after I have shown how unstable homosexual marriages/relationships are, then surely this speaks plenty of the poor standards such a process has. Furthermore, if gay couples have no intention of raising children, then why are they burdening the institution of marriage with their fruitless (in terms of benefit to the state) partnership?

Also, Con claims that the formal adoption process is harder for homosexuals. Not a shred of evidence is provided to affirm this.

Since child-rearing has the vested interest of the children involved, would it not be vitally important that they are raised in the best possible circumstances, of which is pretty much never a homosexual union? *In regards to child-rearing units*, should not homosexual couples be relegated to lesser reverence, due to their inferior nature? Hence, a distinction in terms is necessary.

Act of force (“men with guns”) preventing marriage: there is no force involved. The state simply does not allow the marriage to take place officially. Homosexuals are welcome to form relationships, just not one that is officially recognised by the state as marriage.

Other people have the problems homosexuals have, too: addressed thoroughly under A2.

Infertile couples/elderly marriage: Con provides no evidence to suggest that these groups are numerous enough to impact the resolution.

Moral obligation: According to the resolution parameters, I only have to justify the non-permission of gay marriage based on what is “fair” (based on what is morally or ethically right and/or fair). So, I have argued many things to show that gay marriage is not fair. Some examples include how gay marriage is not nearly as beneficial to the state as heterosexual marriage. The negative impact gay marriage has on children is/would not be fair to allow, either. There are many more intricate points of which I will crystallise in the final round.

Conclusion

When a society allows likely-to-fail, emotionally unstable, non-gentically interested marriages (i.e. gay marriage, which was shown with my arguments), not only does it undermine the integrity of marriage (which I have shown is vital for the existence of a nation), but it is very damaging for the children involved. It is not fair to burden various groups with these negative aspects. With these reasons, I offer you a rejection of gay marriage.

Pro’s entire argument is essentially a non sequitur or a case of special pleading.

Pro applies marriage requirements not imposed on others: special pleading and the opposite of fairness. At best you could conclude that homosexual marriages share a unique set of challenges. It does not follow that marriage rights, benefits and partnership should be removed.

Gay and lesbian couples make fit parents.

Pro has argued that gays make poor parents indirectly citing studies about step parents or assuming that mental health issues will have a large impact on child rearing. After a review of available studies 80+ on gay parents, no discernable negative difference was found between children raised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. [18] Pro has not produced any direct research that cites that there is any discernable difference in homosexual adopted children because none is available.

The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry firmly concluded in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults.” [12] The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2002 stated, "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."

They reiterated this in 2009 and 2013 in support of same sex adoption. The American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in 2004 that, "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation."

Gay and Lesbian adoptions perform a national Service.

Gay and Lesbian parents are more often to adopt performing a vital role in our society building families where there are none [19]. Pro here has argued that children should not be raised outside of marriage but without gay marriage she would cause just that. Gays adopt a higher percentage of unwanted children including children over six, minorities and children over three. Half the children adopted by gay parents have special needs.

Pro’s requirements for marriage would exclude other groups from marriage. Pro’s list of marriage requirements is unreasonable.

Pro is pointing to one troubled group and recommended their marriage right be taken away. By pointing to another high-risk group I can demonstrate Pro’s special pleading.

Black marriages in America share many struggles associated with poverty. Blacks have a much higher incidence of mental illness [11] The majority of black children are raised by single parents, 67% when compared to 25% among whites indicating unstable relationships. [13]A much higher percentage of Black Americans are raised in poverty. [14] While Gay couples are more highly educated and earn a higher income [15] Blacks have higher rates of teen pregnancy. [16] I have already mentioned divorce rates as high as 70%. [2]

Why is Pro not targeting black marriage before gay marriage when they are a greater threat as a higher percentage of the population, 13% vs 1%?

Because her whole argument is a case of special pleading.

The highly religious have higher levels of property crime [20] and higher rates of teen pregnancy due to irresponsible sexual practices. [21] They also have higher divorce rates [22] and commit more violent murder, bank robberies and violent sexual assault. What rights should they be denied? Certainly marriage rights to start. You cannot point to a target group that shares a set of problems and then deny certain rights.

If fairness is the goal then a consistent criteria should apply to everyone both gays and straight. This is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. There are no criteria for marriages in the United States so this standard must be applied to Homosexuals.

Emotional Health

There is growing evidence that environment is a key factor in the issues attributed to homosexuals. [12]

Adoption process: Homosexuals are typically more highly educated and earn a better income.

Two qualities that make them stand up well in the adoption process and, incidentally two benefits they hold over straight marriages. I have already demonstrated that Homosexuals make fit parents. Since there is no measurable difference between children raised in adopted gay marriages it’s safe to say that the standards work fairly well. I have cited a site that lists the general international requirements: Age, physical health, emotional health, criminal/child abuse history, marital/domestic partnership history, financial history and home environment.

Note Gay Couples stand out in several areas. Highly educated are less likely to commit crime [24]. As I mentioned they have a lower incidence of divorce so they have longer marital histories. Good incomes make for stable home environment. If there is a higher incidence of mental health these potential parents are vetted or considered in the process.

Compare this to heterosexual parents where there are no requirements and there is a 50% accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals. [19]

Rebuttals:

II and III impact amplifier

I have shown that homosexuals make fit parents in spite of any challenges.

Premise: Heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society

Here Pro throws heterosexuals into many broad categories and then simply asserts that children born into heterosexual marriages are superior in several categories. She has not compared this directly with studies referencing the quality of children adopted to homosexuals and the research does not support it. Subcategories of heterosexual marriages arguably are substandard parents and Pro is targeting homosexuals without a just cause.

Relabelling gay marriage/resolution misrepresentation:

If the resolution were gay marriage should be relabeled civil union no one would have accepted the debate. As defined, “Gay marriage - a legally binding union conferring on two same-sex partners the same legal rights, status, and benefits that "traditional" marriage would typically confer upon opposite-sex couples.” Pro mentions nothing about children and emphasizes rights and benefits. Who would think the debate is more about children than the rights and benefits specifically mentioned.

Pro needs to accurately defend her resolution.

Tax breaks are given to married couples to support marriage.

Separate tax breaks are given to support children regardless of marriage. Financial benefits are a leading cause of divorce so obviously financial benefits assist in the stability of marriage although apparently straight couples need the help more. [26] I would say the other benefits I mention obviously help a relationship.

III. Homosexual relationship infidelity

Gay Marriages are not unstable.

Gay marriages are not unstable and in fact quite the opposite is true. Pro mentions infidelity in support but that need not create instability. In fact there is a balance. Note that Pro has simply asserted that marriage is about monogamy without support. While gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners they are in tern less likely to pursue marriage and less likely to divorce than straight couples. [17] Roughly 2/3 of homosexual marriages are lesbian. While divorce any given year 2% of straight couples will get divorced while 1% of gay couples divorce. Gay Marriages are clearly as stable as straight marriages.

Pro repeatedly asserts that I have dropped arguments or made bald assertions.

I have appealed to common sense or common knowledge. Obviously marriage benefits improve a marriage and I can source this for Pro. A dropped argument must necessarily be ignored. If I argue that an argument is irrelevant or a case of special pleading I have addressed the argument. It’s disingenuous of Pro to claim otherwise.

Moral obligation:

Pro’s case is anything but fair. If she were honest she would argue for equal requirements for all marriage. Currently, there are none so she uses special pleading to exclude gays alone. This is disingenuous when many gay couples would meet her requirements and many straight couples would not. This includes many from the black, heavily religious and impoverished. Why is Pro targeting homosexuals when this is certainly not fair?

Infertile couples/elderly marriage:

Around 11% of woman will receive treatment for infertility and roughly 5% of couples choose not to have children. [25]

Act of force (“men with guns”) preventing marriage:

Previously, if clerks were to begin granting marriage permits to homosexuals men with guns would show up to enforce the law.

Culmination effect:

Pro randomly chooses three requirements for marriages. I have demonstrated that Gay Marriages are not unstable. I have also shown that infidelity in Homosexual relationships does not lead to a higher divorce rate or any deficiency in child rearing. Pro is inconsistent in applying these criteria and if she were various forms of gay marriage would be permitted when the relationships could be shown to be stable, mentally healthy and have a high level of fidelity.

-

It’s as simple as my introduction. Pro presents a well-organized case that is not valid or sound. It’s not valid because the internal logic does not arrive at the final conclusion. External research does not back up her premises so it is not sound.

Thank you, 2-D, for providing worthy opposition throughout this debate.

I know that DDO is overwhelmingly in favour of legalising gay marriage, so please, all I ask is that you just give me a chance. I used to also think “how could anyone possibly be against gay marriage?” It wasn’t until I realised how much it undermined the already frail institution of marriage (look at the skyrocketing divorce rates) that I finally saw the other side of the argument. It is my sincerest hope that I can help you see this other side, too.

Crystallisation and final rebuttals

I will be ignoring Con’s attempt to dictate to you, the voter, as to how you should interpret my arguments. That is *your* right, not his. I will now finalise my case to make it crystal clear so that *you* can decide whether I am committing non sequiturs or whatever his dictating accused me of.

Also, I would like to emphasise that rebuttals are allowed this round, but keep in mind that I cannot respond to any of Con’s rebuttals.

Finally, I believe that my opponent has dropped plenty of my research. When I indicate that he has, if you do not believe me, have a look for yourself!!

Non-equivalence: the crux of my argument

Just as you would not call a cat a dog, despite both being animals, you would not call homosexual union marriage, despite both it and heterosexual marriage being a unions. My aim, in this debate, was to show you that:

1) Homosexual union is inferior to heterosexual union, in regards to the functions of marriage

2) The differences are significantly impactful enough

C) Therefore, this should warrant a non-permission of homosexual marriage

Please note that is was *never* my aim to prevent homosexuals from forming partnerships, having *some* of the marriage rights or being entitled to benefits, as my opponent, once again, strawmans my argument as doing: “It does not follow that marriage rights, benefits and partnership should be removed.” I even flipped my opponent’s argument in the 3rd round, that being homosexuals should be entitled to *all* the benefits because the benefits are there to help with child-rearing, not merely relationships, as the state should be prioritising the superior heterosexual marriages.

It is up to me show that the differences are impactful enough to justify the resolution. If I manage to do that, then I affirm the resolution.

Union is about love and partnership; Marriage is about forming the best unit for child-rearing of which is the bedrock of society

An integral premise and understanding for my side is that marriage exists as an institution for heterosexual child-rearing. The “status” of marriage is that of a child-rearing unit (counters the relabelling gay marriage argument my opponent makes). Again, marrying for merely love makes no sense, as you can love someone *without* having the state recognise it. Homosexuals already have civil unions available to them, so the health and tax-breaks can already be garnered through means besides marriage. *If* marriage is equivalent to civil unions (as my opponent has essentially argued), then there is left no term to denote the distinction between the superior heterosexual union, and the inferior homosexual union (all in regards to marriage). Ignoring the superior child-rearing capabilities has the following impacts:

1) Children are raised in an inferior, often unsuitable environment (A1 + A2)

2) Society fails to recognise the important of heterosexual marriage, and thus will lead to a (admittedly somewhat slow) collapse of society (as shown in my Japan example, which Con dropped)

Thus, marriage serves the function of the strongest unit in which children can be raised. If I can show that homosexuals are significantly inferior at raising children, this conclusion (rejection of gay marriage) naturally follows.

Con Claim: Gay and Lesbian adoptions perform a national Service

Relating again to the “status”, it has been my argument throughout the debate that homosexual unions are significantly inferior, in regards to child-rearing, and thus they should not granted the same status as heterosexual unions (i.e. marriage). Now, this can translate into heterosexuals being prioritised in adoption processes, whilst homosexuals are least prioritised, due to their inferior relationship status, and thus the distinction can be made by denying homosexuals relationships the status of marriage. The government should not have to wade through a plethora of poor homosexual unions, especially when they competing against superior heterosexual unions.

A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate

Homosexual inability to procreate leads to lack of genetic interest in children

This point was never contested by Con, hence the entirety of my A1 is dropped. Con’s only attempted counter-argument to my argument was that *consciously*, homosexuals may have interest. However, my objection to homosexual parenting was via the *subconscious* lack of interest, which translates into a 100-300 increased abuse/murder rate + increase in general neglect and apathy for child, depending on which study of mine you read. Also remember that biological urges occur *before* conscious thought (e.g. I feel a lack of genetic interest in this child, therefore I’m going to neglect the child), so the subconscious thought will, if anything, dictate the conscious one.

A2: Superior/inferior child-rearing capabilities

I. Emotional instability

Con conceded in the 2nd round that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental illness (his “their illness is culturally based” counter is counter-countered by my Netherlands study, of which he dropped).

II. Marriage instability

To address Con’s study, he conflates “married” and “registered” same-sex couples, and then compares them to only married straight couples. This misaligns with this heading of marriage instability. Furthermore, Con has dropped my sources, of which one showed that of all the Scandinavian countries to legalise gay marriage, divorce risks were higher. My properly aligned study should be preferred to Con’s misaligned one.

To soundly rebut Con’s claim of infidelity not affecting marriages, cross apply my impact amplifier below (which was dropped by Con), and you will see that people who sleep around are far *less* capable of staying together and refraining from abusing each other, due to vasopressin and oxytocin. This manifests in clear data that people who sleep around are far less able to remain in marriage. Have a look [1]:

III. Homosexual relationship infidelity

Con has dropped my sources and arguments.

II and III impact amplifier

Since Con never addressed these points directly, they are dropped.

Culmination effect

This is the argument that solidifies my claim that homosexuals are inferior parents. Homosexuals perform more poorly across the board than any other group Con has shown. Allow me to show you the updated version (which will now combine all of my arguments dropped in my 3rd round, under the title ‘Premise: Heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society’):

My opponent found some positives for homosexual unions, but they are drowned in the long list of negatives. Even when compared to the list of black marriage problems (which is compared against white people, *not* homosexuals), a lot of them plague gays as well, such as: higher mental illness rates, have unstable relationships and high divorce rates (as do gays) etc. But *even if* Con did find another group whom had poor child-rearing capabilities to rival homosexuals, that does not lessen the poor child-rearing capabilities of homosexuals.

On another note, my opponent found statistics that suggested a very small percentage of heterosexuals struggle with fertility and an even smaller number choose not to have children. However, the Culmination effect is simply too overbearing to be countered with a few ineffective statistics. The apparent 50% accidental pregnancy rate is crushed by the 100% lack of genetic interest resulting in a 100-300 times increase in parental abuse and murders (see A1). The 4.5% of gay relationships remaining monogamous after a year has no counter-response, and the negative infidelity effects are supercharged by the entirely uncontested “impact amplifier”. In the end, if you bunch my research together, there is an overbearing case against homosexual parenting, especially if you consider that the vast majority of research for these points was dropped.

Con claim: Gay and lesbian couples make fit parents

Ignoring most of my A2, Con provides quotes relating to gay parenting from three institutions. Unfortunately for Con, these are appeals to authority (logical fallacies), as they are merely quotes, rather than the research required to make the argument.

Con provides a link to a summary of 80+ gay parent studies. Con also claims that no studies are available which show “discernible” differences between children in homosexual and heterosexual units. Con dropped my extensive research [2] in the 3rd round, of which so happens to be the research Con says does not exist. Con’s summary is a 2001 review, of which is outdated compared to my 2005 collaborative report (summarising 150 works; 70 more than Con’s). Based on mine being more recent and far more extensive, my updated version should be preferred.

Simplified Syllogism

To help you with the voting, I will make my argument as simple as possible:

1) Marriage is an institution about child-rearing

2) Marriage is the bedrock of society

C1) Therefore, the state has interest in keeping marriages as strong as possible

Pro has not defended or accurately represented the resolution. Pro’s entire argument is essentially a non sequitur or a case of special pleading.

Pro has not contested this point. The foundations of her argument do not arrive at the resolution, and again, she has not supported the resolution. I could agree with all of Pro’s claims and conclude that the resolution is not sound.

This is the crux of Pro’s argument and she has not been able to establish why it follows that gays should be denied marriage rights. She did not respond to my argument regarding black or highly religious couples. Why should a special set of rules be applied to gay marriage that is not applied to any other marriages?

Pro has no answer. She is biased against gay marriage. She has not recommended her criteria be applied to marriage in general, which would often allow Gay Marriage, but only applies her standards to homosexual couples.

Pro has reaffirmed that she has no interest in supporting the resolution. She is not against gay partnership, marriage benefits or rights. She is arguing for a separate but roughly equal institution. I quote Pro, “Please note that is was *never* my aim to prevent homosexuals from forming partnerships, having *some* of the marriage rights or being entitled to benefits.”

So what exactly is Pro advocating? We could conclude nothing from her whole vacuous case other than marriage tax breaks afforded to heterosexual couples should not be allowed as an effort to prevent gay adoption. Note that tax breaks are afforded for adopted and biological children in addition to marriage tax reductions and that Pro has not been able to establish that homosexual parents are not excellent adoptees.

This does not conflict with the resolution since she has not clarified or sufficiently argued what specific right should be denied. Therefore she has not supported the resolution.

Union is about love and partnership; Marriage is about forming the best unit for child-rearing of which is the bedrock of society

Pro has leaned far to heavily on this point. Homosexual couples do not biologically reproduce and are dependent on adoption. There are strict requirements for adoption that all couples are subject to.

All Pro needed to do was point to research that compares children adopted by homosexuals with those adopted by heterosexual couples. She was not able to do this. She compared stepparents to biological parents and married children to those born outside marriage. She was not able to cite any research concluding that gays to not make fit parents.

In addition, child rearing is not necessary for marriage and there are separate requirements for adoption. If I conclude that gays make unfit parents no action need be taken and this is completely separate from marriage rights. Throughout her case Pro has simply equivocated marriage and adoption rights when these are two entirely separate issues.

Pro’s requirements for marriage would exclude other groups from marriage. Pro’s list of marriage requirements is unreasonable.

Dropped by Pro. Pro applies additional requirements to Gay Marriage that would exclude other groups from marriage far before homosexuals.

Pro repeatedly asserts that I have dropped arguments.

I have argued that a lot of Pro’s research or positions are not highly relevant. For instance, she argues that a society without marriage would be terrible and cites a society where marriage is not common in support (Japan). This is circular and Pro simply asserts that their financial crisis is a direct result. Pro’s definition of ‘dropped’ is highly suspect and includes many points I have conceded as irrelevant.

Con Claim: Gay and Lesbian adoptions perform a national Service

Pro has essentially ignored my whole line of reasoning with respect to adoption. Adoption has it’s own set of requirements that are applied equally to everyone vetting unfit parents both gay and straight.

Homosexual inability to procreate leads to lack of genetic interest in children

This is an argument against all adoption. It applies to all adopted parents and I have demonstrated that gays make fit parents. They are required to meet the same requirements as all adopted couples. Pro’s case here is theoretical but the research does not back it up.

II. Marriage instability

Here Pro objects that my research references registered same sex couples as well as married same sex partners. The irony is lost on Pro that a more lax, informal commitment among same sex couples is stronger than the more formal legal bond afforded by marriage to straight couples.

This is a comparison between the strength of commitment. Until recently, registered was about as formal a commitment afforded to same sex couples so the comparison is warranted.

III. Homosexual relationship infidelity

I conceded that Gay males are more likely to pursue multiple partners outside of a formal commitment. I have argued that they are also less likely to pursue marriage and are less likely to get a divorce when they do marry.

Pro dropped this point.

II and III impact amplifier

Pro presents a theoretical argument about chemical levels in the blood in couples with a high level of infidelity. In response I have agued that the available research shows that this does not impact same sex couple with respect to child rearing or divorce rates. Pro has not been able to establish that lesbian or married same sex couples are more frequently unfaithful so this argument is not relevant to marriage.

Culmination effect (Special Pleading)

Pro continues to support a set of requirements for Gay Marriage and none for anyone else. In spite of the fact that blacks, the highly religious or the poor do not meet her requirements. Many straight couples would not but Pro refuses to apply her requirements fairly negating her resolution.

Pro is again dishonestly claiming that I have dropped her arguments. She previously asserted that children born in heterosexual marriages are better off. Not only did she not provide sourcing but this point is not relevant.

This is not a comparison between adopted children. Instead it is a comparison between children raised in married relationships with those raised by single parents for example. This is yet another irrelevant argument. Moreover, she references research but does not provide source a link.

Pro, again, conflates stepparents with adopted parents which is disingenuous and any struggle would transfer to all adopted parents.

I. Emotional instability

Yes, homosexuals have a higher rate of emotional health issues when compared to heterosexuals. Whites also have a higher incidence when compared to Asians, blacks with respect to whites and the poor with respect to others. It does not follow that they should be denied marriage rights.

Gay and lesbian couples make fit parents

Appeal to authority, often referred to as an appeal to a false authority, is problematic because experts are highly specialized and experts should only be referenced in comments specific to their field. The quotes I reference are specifically targeted to organizations that represent a panel of experts in a directly relevant field and comment directly about available research.

I cite The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry to comment directly on the available research with respect to child psychology, The American Academy of Pediatrics on the research with respect to child well being and The American Psychological Association in regard to mental health.

She has not been able to provide any research comparing adopted children or the parental capacity of same vs opposite sex couples. As I have stated the available research found no difference in the two groups. Pro drops this point.

Pro’s entire argument falls flat here. Where is the relevant research and why does it matter? The research I’ve provided is underwhelmingly flat in that gay and straight parents perform the same. Adoption is a separate issue and Gay parents are held to the same adoptive standards, as they should be.

Pro’s Simplified Syllogism

“1) Marriage is an institution about child-rearing”

Pro’s definition of marriage includes nothing about child rearing. She emphasizes a partnership and rights and benefits. Gay adoption is a separate issue entirely and it’s not highly relevant to this debate.

“2) Marriage is the bedrock of society”

To promote this case Pro again emphasized child rearing when fit homosexual parents can adopt and raise children as capably as opposite sex couples.

“C1) Therefore, the state has interest in keeping marriages as strong as possible”

Pro has not built a case that same sex couples weaken or effect marriage in any way. She has simply asserted that Gay marriage will weaken marriage.

Again, available research shows no difference between children adopted to same or opposite sex couples. She has referenced research about children born in marriage vs those born outside of any commitment such as born to single parents.

“4) Since C1, the state has an interest in keeping the inferior homosexual unions out of marriage”

Pro has asserted this but has not demonstrated how homosexual marriage would effect marriage in any way.

“C2) Therefore, in a just society, gay marriage should not be permitted”

Pro has not developed a case around this conclusion. She has argued that Gay Marriage should not be called marriage and vaguely that they should not have the same rights or benefits. Her point is not clear and it is impossible to evaluate her case when she has not sufficiently argued what rights and benefits gays should be denied.

YYW, we've barely discussed the chief problems Airmax and I have with your RFD. Characterizing this as one moderator's crusade to alter the voting standards is unreasonable, especially when Airmax and I are totally agreed on not just the decision but the verbiage used. I explained many of the objective problems in that RFD, both here and to you personally, but I also explained how it still satisfies the basic standards. You don't agree they're objective, and that's why we're still discussing it by PM, as I'm sure we will for quite some time.

Whiteflame's critisism regarding his subjective disagreements with the methodology is misguided and inapropriate, in that it misapplies extant voting standards while conflating philosophical disagreements that whiteflame holds between "what is enough" versus "what is good." Of course, this is a learning process, and eventually we will get to a point where "reasons for non removal" read more like "explanations of why the vote was sufficient" rather than misapplied critiques of an inappropriately liberal interpretation of existing voting standards. Despite the fact that I have discussed, at considerable length, with whieflame why his criticism of my RFD is misguided, he does not appear to understand the flaws in his evaluation, which is evidenced by the fact that the evaluation was in fact posted here despite the fact that the vote was not removed (nor should it have been).

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: There was no argumentative front that CON did not win in this debate. It was not a close debate, and CON objectively won. PRO failed to meaningfully support her claim that gay marriages are inferior in any verifiable (read: objective) way, and misused/misinterpreted evidence and arguments throughout her case. PRO's case begins and ends (as it consistently does) in is/ought fallacies, and that was directly and indirectly indicated by the substance of CON's rebuttals. CON offered normative reasons that directly clash with and substantively overtook all of PRO's claims (be they normative, positive, or normative dressed in the clothes of positive claims). The point regarding infidelity was irrelevant, although won by CON nevertheless. PRO failed to offer any meaningful evidence regarding any fault with gay marriages, even within the scope of her normative goals to that end -and CON offered enough evidence to counter them even if a person bought her claims without warrants to back them up.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Much of this RFD fails to meet the voting standards. While Con did attack several of Pro's pieces of evidence, the point regarding how the evidence is "misused/misinterpreted" is entirely absent in the debate. It's entirely unclear which evidence this voter views as problematic, and therefore impossible to determine what effect this has on the validity of Pro's arguments. The is/ought fallacy is also never broached by Con. While I can understand why a voter might want to take these into consideration, doing so gives Con extra ammo that he did not earn. More importantly, it's difficult to tell whether or not these issues played a substantive role in this voter's decision, and as such, these pieces call the RFD into question.

However, as objectively poor as this RFD is in providing any of the meaningful aspects that RFDs ideally should, (citing arguments, weighing impacts, being specific) this RFD does provide the absolute minimum requirement necessary to avoid removal. Even with that being the case, the voter does make it apparent why they voted the way they did in broad terms, and for those having read the debate, makes it apparent that the voter is familiar with what took place in the debate. While this isn't a "good" rfd by voting moderation standards, it is barely sufficient enough to pass moderation review.
******************************************************************************

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro's A2 -- that homosexuals are worse parents -- is effectively handled by Con. The argument isn't convincing on its own, but Con pointed out how the burgeoning literature demonstrates that homosexuals are adequate parents. Pro seems to have shown that they are unstable, for whatever reason, but as Con did direct comparisons between heterosexual and homosexual parenting with his research, and it found no difference, I am forced to give that to Con. Pro wins A1, which is the important thing anyway. Con flip flops, and ends the debate by saying that having children isn't required, so it is not the purpose of marriage for the state. Even if this is true, it fails to negate the resolution in any way - she could always say that is should be that way. Further, Pro argued that the *capacity* to procreate, and not necessarily doing it, is more important from a philosophical and legal standpoint. I lean pro, even though her A1 could have been worded better.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter goes through quite a few of the arguments made in the debate in order to assess it. It is sufficient to meet the standards for voting on DDO, and while the person who reported this insinuates the presence of bias in the vote, I can't see it to any degree that warrants removal.
******************************************************************************

After talking a bit with Skep I could not hold back anymore on saying this:

The genetic fallacy is inapplicable to a source when it is widely put down as a hate group with an agenda to demonize certain groups of people. To call the genetic fallacy here is dishonest and outright wrong because of this.

Reasons for voting decision: There was no argumentative front that CON did not win in this debate. It was not a close debate, and CON objectively won. PRO failed to meaningfully support her claim that gay marriages are inferior in any verifiable (read: objective) way, and misused/misinterpreted evidence and arguments throughout her case. PRO's case begins and ends (as it consistently does) in is/ought fallacies, and that was directly and indirectly indicated by the substance of CON's rebuttals. CON offered normative reasons that directly clash with and substantively overtook all of PRO's claims (be they normative, positive, or normative dressed in the clothes of positive claims). The point regarding infidelity was irrelevant, although won by CON nevertheless. PRO failed to offer any meaningful evidence regarding any fault with gay marriages, even within the scope of her normative goals to that end -and CON offered enough evidence to counter them even if a person bought her claims without warrants to back them up.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro's A2 -- that homosexuals are worse parents -- is effectively handled by Con. The argument isn't convincing on its own, but Con pointed out how the burgeoning literature demonstrates that homosexuals are adequate parents. Pro seems to have shown that they are unstable, for whatever reason, but as Con did direct comparisons between heterosexual and homosexual parenting with his research, and it found no difference, I am forced to give that to Con. Pro wins A1, which is the important thing anyway. Con flip flops, and ends the debate by saying that having children isn't required, so it is not the purpose of marriage for the state. Even if this is true, it fails to negate the resolution in any way - she could always say that is should be that way. Further, Pro argued that the *capacity* to procreate, and not necessarily doing it, is more important from a philosophical and legal standpoint. I lean pro, even though her A1 could have been worded better.